财产性利益盗窃的客观构造

利益盗窃与有体物盗窃共享“财产静态控制关系”的保护法益,其解释论不能突破“盗窃”的语义边界,这是形塑其客观构造的前提。套用占有理论的解释论忽视了利益变动与有体物转移的区别,具有片面性。立足利益盗窃与有体物盗窃的共性,结合财产性利益的特质,利益盗窃的客观构造应为“侵入权利人控制领域-打破权利人控制-取得财产性利益”。这一构造既契合盗窃罪财产静态控制关系的保护法益,也未突破“盗窃”的语义边界。由于利益变动的抽象性,须通过行为要素互补等精细化解释,确保利益盗窃客观构造的明确性。“侵入权利人控制领域”对利益盗窃的成立必不可少;“打破权利人控制”包括了转移、消灭、设定义务三种行为方式;“取得”的认定应注意素材的“同一性”与“同质性”之别,并强调终局性要求。

The Objective Structure of Property Interest Theft

It is the premise of shaping its objective structure that interest theft and physical object theft share the protection legal interest of "static relationship of property control", and its interpretation theory can not break through the semantic boundary of "theft". The interpretation theory in which the possession theory is applied mutatis mutandis overlooks the difference between the change of interest and the transfer of a physical object, thus being one-sided. Based on the commonalities between the theft of interest and the theft of a physical object, and according to the feature of property interest, the objective structure of interest theft should be "invading the right holder's field of control - breaking the control of the right holder - obtaining property interest". Because of the abstractness of interest change, it is necessary to ensure the clarity of the objective structure of interest theft through refined explanation such as complementary elements of a conduct. "Invading the right holder's field of control" is indispensable for the establishment of interest theft;"breaking the control of the right holder" includes three modes of conduct: transferring an obligation, eliminating an obligation, or setting an obligation;during the process of recognizing the "obtaining", attention should be paid to the difference between "identity" and "homogeneity" of materials and emphasis should be placed on the requirement of finality.